I'm looking to purchase a 100MP and was wondering the focus throw on it. Since this is a macro lens, most of the focus distance is concentrated on the closer distances. I don't shoot macro all that much though. Mainly, I'll be using it to shoot portraits, street, and landscapes. My concern is that I won't have enough focusing accuracy at farther distances at wide apertures. Do I have any cause for concern?
Currently, I have the 50 planar on my 5D2 with a Eg-S screen, and I find focusing not too bad at the farther distances. I like the 100mm FL more than the 135mm FL, and I like that the 100MP is smaller and lighter than the 135. But if it'll make it much harder to focus on the 100MP, then I might have to reconsider my choices.
hwan wrote:
My concern is that I won't have enough focusing accuracy at farther distances at wide apertures.
I don't own the 135/2 Apo-Sonnar so I can't compare. However, my 100/2 Makro-Planar is perfect insofar as focusing distant subjects is concerned (I recommend using live-view).
P.S.: the rotation from 1 m to infinity is slightly more than 90°.
hwan, I don't shoot much macro stuff and the short focus throw of Makro-Planar T* 2/100 at normal shooting distances has annoyed me since 2008. For me the 2/135 is great relief since it makes focusing much easier and faster, mostly because of the longer focus throw and extraordinary wide open performance.
I don't have time to calculate degrees but here are millimeters from the lens barrel:
Far distances - from 10 meters to infinity:
Makro-Planar T* 2/100: 4.5mm
APO-Sonnar T* 2/135: 10mm
Medium distances - from 2 meters to 10 meters:
Makro-Planar T* 2/100: 19.5mm
APO-Sonnar T* 2/135: 47mm
Close-up distances - from 1 meters to 2 meters:
Makro-Planar T* 2/100: 30mm
APO-Sonnar T* 2/135: 79mm
Magnifications/distances in Makro-Planar T* 2/100 @ close distances:
From 1:2 to 1:3 (in meter scale 0.44m-0.52m): 78mm
From 1:3 to 1:4 (in meter scale 0.52m-0.61m): 39mm
From 1:4 to 1:5 (in meter scale 0.61m-0.70m): 21.5mm
From 1:5 to 1:10 (in meter scale 0.70m-1.18m): 44mm
As you can see most of the throw in 2/100 is wasted to makro:
hwan wrote:
I'm looking to purchase a 100MP and was wondering the focus throw on it. Since this is a macro lens, most of the focus distance is concentrated on the closer distances. I don't shoot macro all that much though. Mainly, I'll be using it to shoot portraits, street, and landscapes. My concern is that I won't have enough focusing accuracy at farther distances at wide apertures. Do I have any cause for concern?
Currently, I have the 50 planar on my 5D2 with a Eg-S screen, and I find focusing not too bad at the farther distances. I like the 100mm FL more than the 135mm FL, and I like that the 100MP is smaller and lighter than the 135. But if it'll make it much harder to focus on the 100MP, then I might have to reconsider my choices....Show more →
This is in large part why I gave up the 100MP and kept the 85P and am considering the 135mm. There's a reason one is a macro lens and the other one a 'portrait'-distance type of lens. Zeiss consider things not often talk about in online tech forums (beyond eg. sharpness in corners, CA and flatness of field).
Rodluvan wrote:
This is in large part why I gave up the 100MP and kept the 85P and am considering the 135mm. There's a reason one is a macro lens and the other one a 'portrait'-distance type of lens. Zeiss consider things not often talk about in online tech forums (beyond eg. sharpness in corners, CA and flatness of field).
The focus throw of the 100/2 is not ideal, but not a show stopper for me. In this case, a short throw at large distances is almost unavoidable because of the 1:2 capability. There is always a positive angle; I remember a Zeiss lens leaflet speaking of a long focus throw for accurate focusing, and another one mentioning a short focus throw for fast focusing.
Toothwalker wrote:
Zeiss lens leaflet speaking of a long focus throw for accurate focusing, and another one mentioning a short focus throw for fast focusing.
Obviously there's a golden mean. Not, however, one I found in the 100P (for obvious reasons; as it's predominately a close focus lens) in long distance focusing.
The same consideration is found in 2/35 vs 1.4/35 in which the throw, hence accuracy, is greater in the later, when the former is 'faster'.
I found the throw very much too short, mainly because of the low SA making any focus error visible. The 35/2 is even worse and almost impossible to focus accurately at ~3-5 meters and beyond.
Rodluvan wrote:
Zeiss consider things not often talk about in online tech forums.
Could this be a reason why Zeiss makes excellent lenses
wiseguy010 wrote:
I never had any problem with the focus throw of the Zeiss 100/2 (nor with any other ZF-lens).
The same here.
P.S.: the focus throw of my old AI 50/1.4 has the same 90° rotation from 1 m to infinity. Never had problems with it to focus where I wanted to (I 'm referring to the focus plane, not to DoF).
Thanks everyone. Maybe I'll rent one sometime and decide for myself.
Ripolini wrote:
P.S.: the focus throw of my old AI 50/1.4 has the same 90° rotation from 1 m to infinity. Never had problems with it to focus where I wanted to (I 'm referring to the focus plane, not to DoF).
While the 50/1.4 may have the same rotation from 1m to infinity, the 100 will be used at farther lengths due to the FL so it's not really a fair comparison. Also, the shallower DOF of the 100 requires more precision.
Select the lens based upon your needs: if you plan to take pictures ranging form close-ups to landscapes, buy the 100 MP; if you plan to take pictures ranging from portraits to landscapes, the 135/2 is your lens. It's simple.
hwan wrote:
While the 50/1.4 may have the same rotation from 1m to infinity, the 100 will be used at farther lengths
Not in landscape photography
the shallower DOF of the 100 requires more precision.
I mentioned DoF in my post. I refer to focus plane, i.e. the distance where the subject is in focus. BTW, a 50/1.4 has a very shallow DoF at f/1.4 ...
Ripolini wrote:
Not in landscape photography
There is RADICAL difference how I shoot landscapes with 50 and short tele;
- with 50 landscapes are usually "all sharp" or highlighting subject within medium distance (2-10m)
- with short tele I RARELY have viewpoint where I could get "all sharp"
With short tele the focusing at 10-20m range is CRITICAL, with 50 who cares if subject is so far away...
Example: Landscape shoot with 2/135, apologies for rather large photo posted but from webthumbnail one can't see what was the idea behind the photo. Carl Zeiss APO-Sonnar T* 2/135 @ f/2, 1/500s, 5DmkII@ISO100 - focus distance maybe 20 meters or even longer away.
Ripolini wrote:
I'm pretty sure I could have focused as accurately as you with my 100 MP
Of course one can - it's not question of that. I have shoot Makro-Planar T* 2/100, since it was available in ZF mount, later upgraded to ZE mount, as my most used lens (2011 and 2012 more shifting towards Planar T* 1.4/50 what comes to "main lens", but still very much used lens) and succeeded focus every time correctly (I shoot only with live view using LCDVF).
However acquiring correct focus and being sure it's correct focus is 5-10 times faster with APO-Sonnar T* 2/135 on large distances (when camera is operated by me). I would never consider shooting Makro-Planar T* 2/100 from boat (never stays in one places, always drifting little). But today I most likely shoot few photos from boat with APO-Sonnar T* 2/135, thou mainly planning to shoot with Distagon T* 2/35 and 2.8/21.
I think your last post confirms what I wrote previously thus answering definitely to OP question/concern:
hwan wrote:
I'm looking to purchase a 100MP ...My concern is that I won't have enough focusing accuracy at farther distances at wide apertures. Do I have any cause for concern?
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
I have shoot Makro-Planar T* 2/100, since it was available in ZF mount ... and succeeded focus every time correctly (I shoot only with live view using LCDVF).
Ripolini, you are misunderstanding Samuli's quote. Of course, "it can be done". But "doing it" comes at a price, meaning the lens makes it long and difficult rather than fast and easy. Besides, the reason I join this discussion is to mention what Samuli doesn't say: that he is a world-class shooter, combining a brilliant eye with flawless/ruthless execution. So, that he can "do it" doesn't mean that many people can. Rather, it would have meant, if he had not been able to, that only a handful of people in the world might have been able to succeed where the mighty Samuli had failed...
Yeah, I know, Samuli, you are blushing and squirming. Sorry I embarassed you, man...
philber wrote:
Ripolini, you are misunderstanding Samuli's quote. Of course, "it can be done". But "doing it" comes at a price, meaning the lens makes it long and difficult rather than fast and easy.
Long and difficult ?? Is this your experience with the 100 MP (do you own it ??) ?
I never had any difficulty in focusing distant subjects with my 100 MP and those wondering about its focus throw have never used a macro AF lens ...
Yes, I did own one for 2 years, and could compare it directly at that time with my ZE 85. Why can you not just agree to disagree with Samuli and I? I have no problem if you tell me it is super-easy for you. Just, it was not my experience, and is not Samuli's.
